Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[pemerton]

the scenario has (1) multiple decision points, and (2) in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow. If you choose to play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so. I, for one, do not play with people who whine about the consequences of their actions within a game.

whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is always among my list of criteria.

Who is whining at the table? Last time I checked this is a messageboard thread discussing the merits and demerits, for various styles of play, of various rules mechanics.

I think the point of the orc-with-greataxe example is to generate an intuition that a game which is meant to evoke certain responses in play, via a combination of (i) the player identifying with a particular ingame element (the PC), (ii) the player making meaningful choices with respect to that ingame element (playing the PC) and (iii) having combat be a significant portion of the ingame activity (as evidenced by its dominant place in the game rules), is not well-served by having an excess of instant-death rules.

It seems that the designers of AD&D shared that intuition to a significant extent, by making instant death upon entering combat more-or-less impossible for any melee combatant PC of higher than 1st level facing a typical threat for their level.

3E increased the danger posed to PCs by low-level humanoids by (i) increasing the damage dice of many melee weapons, (ii) letting low-level humanoids add STR bonuses to damage, (iii) giving low-level humanoids fairly good STR bonuses, (iv) increasing the STR damage bonus from two-handed weapons, (v) arming many low-level humanoids with two-handed weapons and (vi) introducing critical hit rules which greatly increase the maximum damage possible from some of those weapons.

As far as D&D is concerned, the orc-with-greataxe is a phenomenon unique to 3E.

The question is, does the introduction into the game of this phenomenon improve or undermine the quality of the play experience? Purely abstract discussion of whether or not risk of PC death is important to the play experience doesn't answer that question, because such abstract discussion doesn't get to the details of the different phenomena that result from the differences of mechanics between AD&D and 3E (and 4e, which more closely resembles AD&D than 3E in this respect). And telling people not to whine is irrelevant also. People may play D&D for many reasons. It doesn't follow that, by choosing to play it, they are precluded from expressing the view that the game would be better if the 3E orc-with-greataxe phenomenon were not part of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Hello Pemerton, I appreciate the extended response and despite the fact that I'm not jiving with what you're saying, you're getting some XP from me - for what it's worth.

However, some points that you may or may not find useful.

- You have introduced the idea of episodic play vs. sandbox style play. Our group is definitely in the sandbox camp rather than episodic. 4E still works for us though - not perfectly (no edition of D&D has done that yet), we still have issues but we're giving it a good go.

- You have introduced the idea of a metagame "rest". This is an unsatisfactory solution for our group. We expect the game to tell us that our character needs healing

<snip>

It should not be as part of some weird, metagame player accord. It should have been in-built.

Unfortunately the game does not tell us this. I find this jarring.

<snip>

You are suggesting an out-of-game agreement to assist with in-game verisilitude. By its nature, I find this kind of wonky. The in-game mechanics should be informing me of this, not some made up player (that is non-character) accord.

<snip>

I think you're over-stating the case. Surely you don't have to be a died-in-the-wool simulationist to find this element of the game quirky?

I may have overstated the case. I continue to think that 4e is not especially well-adapted to sandbox, simulationist-oriented play - but if your group is doing it, that shows it can be done.

As for how simulationist you have to be to find this element of the game quirky - well, your instincts are sufficiently simulationist that you don't like the introduction of a healing requirement via narration and metagame agreement rather than mechanics.

Different editions of D&D have made different choices between narration and mechanics for various parts of the game. For example, in AD&D (especially 1st ed) morale of NPCs and monsters is a mechanical matter. In 3E and 4e it is largely a narration matter under the GM's control (the intimidation skill and various spells play a mechanical role, but it is a comparatively minor one). At least in some 3E games I imagine that there is a metagame agreement (implicit, perhaps) that evil foes fight to the death, thus removing from the game the moral problem that would be raised of how to deal with evil prisoners of war (a problem notoriously and particularly difficult for players of paladins). So I don't think that what I am suggesting is an outrageous departure from conventional ways of playing D&D.

But I fully agree it is not simulationist - it is not looking to the game mechanics to tell us what is going on in the gameworld.

But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?"

<snip>

I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.

I think this is a slightly different issue. No edition of D&D has ever had provision for wounds that are not mortal and cannot heal naturally (unless some curse such as mummy rot is in effect). Even in the 1st ed DMG it is possible to bind the wounds of a character who is unconscious but not yet dead and have them regain consciousness in fairly short order, and then begin healing naturally after a week of rest.

So I don't find 4e any different from earlier editions in this particular regard - unless your point is that 4e allows more rapid non-magical healing than earlier editions. This is true, but (as Hypersmurf, Lost Soul and I have suggested upthread) such "healing" is easily narrated not as a healing of the wound, but as an exercise by the PC of resolve in the face of injury.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think this is a slightly different issue. No edition of D&D has ever had provision for wounds that are not mortal and cannot heal naturally (unless some curse such as mummy rot is in effect).

Actually, vile damage in 3.x was a case of this, however, that's not what I was trying to say.

But shouldn't a serious injury affect what happens in game? "Hey, this guy needs a cleric or some divine assistance. Has anyone got a healing potion? No, well where's the nearest surgeon, this guy needs help and fast. And the Princess that needs rescuing? She's gonna have to wait - I hope we don't run out of time?"

<snip>

I simply believe there should be provision in the rules for this circumstance - when divine healing is required to keep going.

By required to keep going, I mean required to get the guy up and about in working order with enough hit points so as not to be a passenger in the next combat in a handful of minutes. This required immediate healing of usually a divine nature. Natural healing was a slow process. Now, healing surges do the trick - making you question whether the wound was actually serious at all, to the point where you can guarantee that it wasn't that bad; and could not have been that bad.

So I don't find 4e any different from earlier editions in this particular regard - unless your point is that 4e allows more rapid non-magical healing than earlier editions. This is true, but (as Hypersmurf, Lost Soul and I have suggested upthread) such "healing" is easily narrated not as a healing of the wound, but as an exercise by the PC of resolve in the face of injury.

There are some injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth. My point is/was that these types of injuries obviously don't happen anymore - see my dialogue between the heroes Pemerton and Herremann - unless of course you die from them. Thus the easy narration you are talking about is missing a huge chuck of dramatic death defying injuries.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thus the easy narration you are talking about is missing a huge chuck of dramatic death defying injuries.

But when did these dramatic death-defying injuries ever come up in 3E?

Someone can go from two hundred hit points down to one hit point, and carry on exactly as they were before... so obviously this doesn't cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

Someone could be dropped negative, and then two Cure Minor Wounds orisons might bring them back up to one hit point... at which point they can carry on exactly as they were before. So either healing two hit points of damage can cure injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth... or going negative did not cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

When did dramatic death-defying injuries ever show their face in 3E?

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

I was rereading some of my Dragon magazines and came across an interesting reply from the editor regarding a letter sent in about an article in a previous issue on firearms. The letter was (very rightly) complaining about the reloading times and rules of the firearms in the article. They were way, way too fast. Inhumanly fast. The response, in my mind, is very enlightening:

The fact did occur to us, but if we required players to use more realistic reload times, we would have contradicted the DMG. The DMG gives guns such a short reload time because gunpowder weapons can't be as deadly as they are in real life. Firearms came to prominence because when tehy could be fired accurately, they penerated all avalable armors. Besides, a single shot to the head or torso can easily kill someone, even if that someone is the size of an elephant. You can't amke firearms that deadly in D&D without making the game less fun (or making guns so expensive it's unrealistic), so you have to make them deal damage like all D&D weapons. Having made that choice, the designers of the game gave gns a shorter load time. After all, why spend 3 to 5 rounds reloading a weapon that deals 1d8 points of damage when the game allows characters to fire a longbow a couple of dozen times in the same period?

And this gets back to the point I was trying to make about what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game work? How far are you willing to go to make things function at the table?

Take a separate issue that most people don't get too fussed about - facing. 1e and 2e had facing rules; the shield rules came into effect depending on where the baddies were. 3e despite being far more minis dependent than earlier editions, ejected facing. And, for the most part, I think people weren't too worried about it. At least, I missed any large kerfuffle about facing. You were assumed to be turning about many times during your round and that was good enough.

Only, it wasn't. Because, while there were no mechanical facing rules, you still had long and narrow, or short and fat base sizes. Horses being a prime example. Having bases that were not regular shaped meant you suddenly had facing again. Not too many DM's were going to let you charge you horse sideways so you could block the enemies better. Yet, if there was no facing, no "front or back" then I should be able to do that.

3.5 got rid of the whole thing and went to square bases. And, the problems started. People were willing to eject facing rules, but, a number of people were not willing to sacrifice the idea that long, skinny creatures should have long, skinny bases. You saw a fair number of complaints over the years on this exact issue. You cannot have the massed charge, that sort of thing.

And that's what it comes down to. Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away? At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun? This is something we're not going to agree on. For some, very little can be sacrificed. There is a very low tolerance to hand waving. For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away.

That's how I'm starting to view this anyway.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But when did these dramatic death-defying injuries ever come up in 3E?

Someone can go from two hundred hit points down to one hit point, and carry on exactly as they were before...

Provided they make their massive damage save (which has a whole heap of issues as well - I'm certainly not trying to imply that 3E was all sugar and spice and all things nice).

so obviously this doesn't cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

Again the massive damage mechanic was the "patch" for this "bug".

Someone could be dropped negative, and then two Cure Minor Wounds orisons might bring them back up to one hit point...

Ah, but without this divine aid, or even any aid, chances are the character is more than likely dead (although your chances of surviving at -1 are significantly better than surviving at -9).

at which point they can carry on exactly as they were before.

But as I answered you previously, while they can start an encounter the same as someone at full health, chances are they won't finish that encounter as "successfully" as the guy that was at full health - chances are that any serious encounter will leave them dead.

So either healing two hit points of damage can cure injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth... or going negative did not cause injuries though that even the greatest heroes could not soldier on with, gritting their teeth.

Again, 3.x has its issues in not separating physical damage from all the other things that hit points are supposed to represent. As such, the 2 hit points of divine healing you are talking about is not an absolute measure. If they "heal" a 100hp fighter at 98hps 2 hit points, they have had almost no effect on his health. For a fighter at -1(dying), those same two orisons are the difference between consciousness and a possible trip to the afterlife. The orisons were far more "powerful" in the latter circumstance than the former.

When did dramatic death-defying injuries ever show their face in 3E?

-Hyp.

In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.

If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound". I'd roll my eyes, think of the Black Knight, chuckle at the game rules and then continue on.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

And that's what it comes down to. Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away? At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun? This is something we're not going to agree on. For some, very little can be sacrificed. There is a very low tolerance to hand waving. For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away.

That's how I'm starting to view this anyway.

Funnily enough, I saw more facing arguments around than square base ones. I gather one's perception of the problems is equally affected by one's perspective on those problems.

As for the whole abstraction thing, you've got it exactly right. It comes down to why people play roleplaying games. Personally, I love entering the worlds of the books I enjoy reading (Feist, Martin, Erikson, Vance, etc.) and having fun with the stories our group creates. If too many "gamey" things come up, it takes away from the narrative we end up creating. Mechanics that disconnect too far from the flavour they are trying to represent take away a little of the fun for me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.

But, what happens if your roll your 10% stabililization check? Now you're concious, Do you still have a bolt sticking out of your eye? Do you need to get that eye replaced? After all, even Heal won't replace lost body parts. Is an eye a body part?

I would have a problem with the DM describing things this way, because it opens up a whole can of questions that are not going to get answered. I'd much prefer, "The crossbow bolt slams into you, lifting you off your feet and you fall on the ground, bleeding." Now, I don't need to retcon anything ever. Second wind works, or just a cure light wound - either way, I still have two eyes and no mechanical effects.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But, what happens if your roll your 10% stabililization check? Now you're concious...

No you're not. If left to your own devices (that is no one to aid you), you are stabilized but not yet conscious. You then have to start making 10% chance hourly checks to regain consciousness - losing a hit point each time if you fail. On your own, chances are you're not going to make it - and if you do, it was a ***miracle. In a group situation with a cleric, curing wand or potion, you are going to be getting this divine healing. You aren't going to have people go, "hmmm... let's leave him for a bit and see if he gets better". The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).

Now, I don't need to retcon anything ever.

and thus why none of the character's in the games you have played suffered anything worse than an injury that they can "grit it out", walking around soon after unimpeded. I think 3E offers you a little more variety in this regard. It is far from perfect but heh...

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

***Such a miracle has never yet happened in a game that I have personally played in. I read a thread over on Paizo where an abondoned -6hp character survived such an occurence (the rest of the party were killed). He came back into town several days later having somehow survived. The circumstance was such that a legend was born. Many whispered that the gods themselves must have got involved.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Provided they make their massive damage save (which has a whole heap of issues as well - I'm certainly not trying to imply that 3E was all sugar and spice and all things nice).

...

Again the massive damage mechanic was the "patch" for this "bug".

Massive Damage assumes they lost those 199 hit points all at once (or at least in big chunks).

But Massive Damage also doesn't address the issue you described with 4E - that there are no grievous injuries except those that kill you. Because Massive Damage in 3E... kills you. So again in 3E, you're either dead, or you aren't suffering a grievous injury.

The bolt in the eye character is going to get the healing and no one's sense of verisimilitude has been upset (providing that such miraculous healing is possible in your game).

But if Cure Minor Wounds can fix a bolt in the eye, why is Regenerate a 7th level spell in 3E? If the DM has described a ruined organ, then the spell that fixes ruined organs should be required to fix it. If he wants the wound to be fixable by Cure Minor Wounds, he shouldn't describe a ruined organ...

-Hyp.